Comment on Unions work. That's why the corporations don't like them.
Nougat@kbin.social 11 months agoManagement of labor resources is labor. So is accounting, and marketing, and training. Ownership is not labor. Stifling collective bargaining serves the purposes of owners by ensuring that more of the compensation for work product is taken away from those who labor to and given those who own.
Seize the means of production.
doublejay1999@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Always said the biggest challenger for organisers is the Manager who thinks he’s not a worker.
Nougat@kbin.social 11 months ago
Everyone forgets that things like leadership and management provide value, and deserve fair compensation. Simple ownership can provide some value, if the owner(s) are putting real capital at real risk in order to operate a business which creates a product or service.
For large companies, there is no real risk. They regularly get bailed out by government (i.e., taxpayers, all of us). "Privatize rewards, socialize risk," you know.
Owners ultimately determine the direction of the business, and the compensation of all labor. When executives have giant compensation packages, where a huge proportion of that compensation is in the form of company stock - more ownership - and they're protected by giant golden parachutes, so that they get a big cash out even if they fail miserably, those owners take on no risk whatsoever. Executive ownership inappropriately pits labor (that which adds value but does not have control) and ownership (that which does not add value, but does have control) against one another, in the same person, high on the power ladder of a company. Executive owners are incentivized to serve the purposes of the ownership portion of their roles, because that is what brings them personally more wealth.
Not only should "regular" labor see a greater share of compensation, the amount that anyone is compensated with company stock should be limited to a very small fraction of their overall compensation amount. If you want to add a stock incentive to someone's compensation, it should really be in the form of options.
Cryophilia@lemmy.world 11 months ago
I don’t understand. Why? Wouldn’t more stock options to regular workers be a form of seizing the means of production? Always sounded like a good idea to me.
Nougat@kbin.social 11 months ago
Let's first clear up the difference between a stock option and a stock grant (in the US).
A stock grant is "Here's some stock, you own it." It is taxed as income at the price it has when you take full ownership of it. Many employee stock plans also include a vesting schedule, where you have the stock, can vote with it, and receive dividends on it - but you cannot sell it until it vests. In that case, you would pay taxes on its price when it vests.
Stock options, on the other hand, are the ability to buy the given stock at the price it had when you were issued the option. You pay no taxes upon receiving an option, you pay no taxes when you exercise the option (choose to buy the stock at the option price). You do pay taxes on the profit made between the price at purchase and the sale price, as with any stock trade. Options can also expire, and if you don't exercise them before they expire, they are gone.
For regular people, you would do a trade which exercises and sells your options at the same time. Option price $5, current price $10, exercise and sell, and you have $5 cash. This requires no outlay of funds from you. It is also possible to just exercise the option and the hold the stock, which has a tax benefit if you hold it longer than a year, when it is taxed not as income, but at the lower capital gains rate. But regular people don't have the liquid cash to be able to lock up for a year like that.
Anyway, the amount of stock grants that are given to regular workers are an absolute pittance compared to what is given to executives. There is no practical way to wrest corporate power away from primary shareholders by increasing the amount of stock granted to employees - especially since the primary shareholders are usually the CEO and board members, or some capital organization (venture capital, holding company, what have you). The primary shareholders would never let that happen. Even if they would, employees who need that wealth to live right now are far more likely to just sell their stock grants when they vest and pay off loans and bills, do home/car repairs, maybe go on a short vacation. They're not going to hold the stock and wield their ownership votes - which are far too few to challenge anything anyway.
I think that, for public companies, separating control of the company direction from ownership is the best choice. Shareholders (really the primary shareholder) should be able to vote on corporate board members and executive committee roles. And that's it. The board and executive committee should have control over the company's direction without being primary shareholders.